Azzim Dukes Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863094407
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2159649201
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$160,400
Expenses
$157,393
Assets
$3,104

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MALEEK JACKSON (PRESIDENT &)

People named in this filing

  • MALEEK JACKSON (PRESIDENT &)
  • KIERSTON RUSDEN (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission and vision of the azzim dukes initiative is that reducing gun violence requires interventions through all systems; including health, family, home, legal, public health, public safety, and community. Fighting gun violence through the sport of boxing is a proactive, rather than reactive, response to a culture of gun violence. Raising awareness of different options, cultures, and stress releases curbs participation in gun activity and violence on our streets.

What it reported doing in 2024

The aim of the azzim dukes initiative is to provide boxing classes & events free of charge to local youth, with a focus on children living in the city whose parents are incarcerated or who come from single-parent households.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.2%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 32.8%; rating input score 33

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.2% of revenue deployed · 32.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.